MCLAUGHLIN v. TWA GETAWAY VACATIONS

Plaintiff sues for breach of contract and for violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus Law §§ 349, 350, and 350-a (prohibiting false and deceptive advertising) in connection with his purchase of a "vacation package" to Las Vegas, Nevada from defendant TWA Getaway Vacations, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trans World Airlines, Inc. ("TWA"). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the package, including both air transportation and hotel accommodations, was falsely advertised as a "3 days / 2 nights" vacation, whereas in actuality it scheduled defendant's arrival in Las Vegas on a Friday night and his departure the following Sunday. Plaintiff alleges further injury from having to pay an additional $ 37.00 to rebook his flight so as to arrive in Las Vegas on Friday morning and thereby realize the full "3 days" for which he believed he had bargained.

Defendant has moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's claims of false and deceptive advertising are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA"). See 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1).
*fn1"
The motion was fully briefed and was argued to the Court on March 28, 1997. Having reviewed all submissions, the Court hereby grants defendant's motion, for the following reasons.

As to the second requirement, the Supreme Court has previously concluded that the activity here challenged "relates to" the rates and services of an airline. Specifically, in Morales, the Supreme Court held that state laws regarding advertisement with respect to disclosure of "limitations on refund or exchange rights, time-of-day or day-of-week restrictions, length-of-stay requirements, . . . limitations on breaks or changes in itinerary, [and] limits on fare availability" were preempted as relating to the rates and services of an airline. Morales, 504 U.S. at 387-88. While the Court excluded from such preemption those cases in which the impact of a challenged advertising practice on fares or rates was tenuous or remote, see id. at 390, this is hardly the case here, where the restrictions that were placed (fraudulently or otherwise) on the times of flights available for low-cost vacation packages directly and materially impacted air fares, which are premised on filling off-peak flights in this manner. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims of false and deceptive advertising under the various New York consumer protection laws are preempted by the ADA and cannot support his action here.

Although plaintiff's remaining claim, for breach of contract, is not preempted by the ADA, see Wolens, 115 S. Ct. at 824 (permitting contract recovery "for the airline's alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings"), this Court is nevertheless without power to adjudicate such a claim, for the Court has no original subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, see Morse v. University of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 1992) ("It may be an abuse of discretion for a district court to refuse to dismiss a pendent state claim after it dismisses a federal claim . . . ."). Specifically, while there appears to be diversity of citizenship for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), damages resulting from plaintiff's contract claim could not in good faith be alleged to exceed the $ 50,000 amount "in controversy" previously required for jurisdiction under the statute.
*fn2"
See, e.g., Tongkook America, Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781 (2d Cir. 1994). While it would appear that the appropriate measure of damages to make plaintiff whole for any alleged contractual breach would be $ 37.00 (the amount paid to rebook a flight for a stay of "3 days," Compl. P 21), plaintiff defines his remedy on this claim as "the full value of the vacation package." Compl. P 29. But since the value was only, at most, a few hundred dollars, Compl. Exh. A (defendant's advertisement), such an amount still does not remotely approach the requisite $ 50,000.
*fn3"

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.